You say that high school shouldn't be a vocational training center. I partially disagree.
The first and foremost job of any school should be to teach students how to think, and how a particular discipline WORKS. But because people are being taught at a superficial level rather than being taught underlying concepts, it is suddenly taking at least a Bachelor's degree to accomplish what a HS diploma once would have in terms of training for the workforce. Sad, very very sad.
In some ways, the accessibility of large quantities of information is a good thing. In other ways, it's bad. Why is it bad?
1. Info-addicts like me end up in all kinds of interesting trouble at work (that's why I've semi-disappeared from/. BTW... work took my access away).
2. More importantly IMHO, the lowest common denominator is STILL pandered to. What good are multiple cable channels when they're all taken up by Monica Lewinsky, old B movies (that aren't even so-good-they're-bad), and syndicated re-runs of shows that weren't worth watching the first time around?
I'd say it's time for the federal government to step in when some states think it's OK for people to be owned by other people, don't you?
And living conditions are still incredibly variable from state to state. Sure, we're all "Americans" here, but the two years I went to school in another state did seem almost like being in another country, as did the week I spent in San Francisco. YMMV, of course, and the change from NY to Pennsylvania doesn't feel as drastic. Hell, even upstate and downstate NY sometimes feel like foreign countries to each other.:)
OK, you've lost me. Every study I've read (except for obvious propoganda put out by the NRA) has said exactly the opposite: the RATE of violent crime becomes much lower in places that have decent amounts of gun control.
The Second Amendment is talking about "a well-regulated militia." Koresh and crew were not part of a well-regulated militia. The Columbine killers were not part of a well-regulated militia. We require people to practice before they are allowed to drive a car on their own, and to show that they can do it safely -- and cars aren't DESIGNED to kill people (even though I know they do it a lot). Why can't we, at the least, do the same with guns?
When I have kids, and someone throws a baby shower for me, I'm going to make sure they know NOT to get me anything with cartoon characters OF ANY SORT on it, and I'll try to keep the kids away from the stuff as long as possible. I don't care if it's Mickey Mouse, Big Bird, or Pokemon.:P
It seems to me that certain problems are pretty much eternal. "What's wrong with today's children"-type books have been around for centuries, at least. People got into various fights over trade goods, labor, and how (or if!) the divine should be worshipped. Those who had less power resented those who had more.
The biggest difference I can see in society is that of mass-production. It seems that in the past, most workers were more directly connected to the results of their efforts than they are now. Just a thought.
In a similar example, it seems that news of the Taliban over in Afghanistan is spreading much more rapidly via the internet than it otherwise would have. Not that anything's being large-scale done about it, of course...
Seems that lately, too many people I know can't be bothered... and admittedly, I was somewhat guilty of this myself when last I was in school.:(
And I do wish that the petty bashing of other people's choice of whether or not to attend college and/or for how long and/or choice of major would just STOP. One of the best professors I had was my radio production prof, who was an adjunct with two years of undergrad work under his belt. I don't think I ever worked harder in a class in my life, or ever loved it as much. Sometimes it's better to learn from a guy who's been out in the field for 30 years than someone with the fancy pieces of paper on the wall.
And of course: social science isn't just for people who "can't hack the hard stuff," science/math/comp-sci majors aren't all heartless and arrogant, an English or other classical liberal-arts type major isn't useless (my dad's got some interesting stats on that one that I don't recall right now), business majors aren't all there just to make a quick buck when they get out, etc.:P
1/2/2000 is a Sunday. Sundays usually aren't "business days" for the purposes of banking. 1/3/2000 or (more likely due to holiday) 1/4/2000 would have been OK as "just another business day," but if a bank can't read a calendar properly, I don't think I'd want to entrust my money to them either:P
... on what you mean by "not good looking." If you want Cindy Crawford, you'll have problems. But there ain't that many Cindy Crawfords offline either.
I've met a few guys from the net (as well as a lovely lady) and none of them have ever been disappointed by my appearance. I consider this a good thing. Of course, I'm not looking NOW *grin*, but I do think that you could do worse than finding someone on the internet. However, your best bet is probably to start talking to someone in something other than a "flirting" or "cybersex" area.
I did a lot of the net-romance thing in college. Two were complete psychos (why I stayed with one of 'em for five months, I'll never know), one just didn't work out and we don't really talk anymore, two that I was fairly serious about and starting to consider moving fell apart due to lack of transportation, but I'm still friends with them, and one I never met (due to his being on another continent) and we were never really a couple for that reason, but the interest was there and we are still friends... he says he's going to come to my wedding.:)
My boyfriend had a more difficult time meeting people online -- then again, he was living with parents (unlike me), and it's probably more difficult for guys due to the whole supply and demand thing. We did NOT meet online, and we're in the same town, but sometimes I wonder what would have happened if we'd run into each other online a few years ago.:)
If you don't know, ASK. "Would you like me to get that for you?" or whatever question is appropriate to the situation. You will likely get one of the following responses:
1. The angry overreaction. "What the hell's wrong with you? I can do it myself!" In this case, you know not to ask her again, and you also know that she might not be (IMHO) the world's greatest relationship material. Not because she is independent or a feminist (I am both) -- because she overreacts to little things. If you LIKE walking on eggshells it could still work, but I'd look elsewhere.:)
2. "No, it's OK, I've got it," accompanied by a friendly smile. This one's definitely independent and feminist as well, but she's calm about it. However, depending on circumstance, this could be a fairly clear indication that (if this is what you had in mind) she's not interested romantically.
3. (My usual flirting tactic back when I was single, and still used on my boyfriend from time to time.) She lets you do whatever for her, and then she makes a big, showy display of doing something similar for you. If she's anything like me, this is a fairly clear sign of interest as well as an attempt to weed out those guys who are extremely insecure about their masculinity. If you like her and value her company, you will accept this with good cheer and even look forward to it.;)
4. She giggles and lets you do whatever for her. Can be good, can be bad. She might be impressed by your chivalry, or she might be deliberately feigning helplessness because she's a) a Rules Girl or b) otherwise trying to put on a fake charming personality. If she's genuine and you like that sort of thing, this could work. But RUN, don't walk, from those who feign helplessness and/or incompetence -- it's even more irritating than legitimate, actual stupidity. These are the same girls who will only eat half of an expensive dinner that you bought because they're worrying about how fat they are since they have to *gasp* wear a size eight! (Yeah, I'm a bit bitter. A good male friend of mine just got dumped by one of these after several years, and he had no idea it was coming. Ugh.)
This is an awful like the generalized psychosis about teen suicide (the biggie when I was in high school, well other than Satanism). "Don't talk about it because then someone might actually do it."
But people NEED to talk about it. Why do you think it got so much media coverage in the first place? Even the media felt the need to talk about it. We on/. obviously feel the need to talk about it -- look how many posts this and other stories like it get.:)
Those of us who write for purposes other than class assignments tend to work things through via our writing. Of course, some of it comes from thin air or from other resources -- my Amber fanfic certainly contains a lot of things that have nothing to do with MY reality. Yet I identify strongly with the "villain" of that story-world because he's another smart kid who couldn't stand the stupidity of the world anymore and went ballistic (at least, that's how I see it). There have certainly been times when I've wished I *did* have some appropriate way to make those who made me miserable suffer as they made me suffer. But it's better to write a story about blowing things up than to actually blow them up, n'est-ce pas?
McMartin Preschool, anyone? OK, so that time it's the adults and not the students, but still. Kids were claiming that they were being flushed down toilets to be molested somewhere else, and 96% of people who had heard of the case believed that the McMartins were guilty?! This "protecting the kids" garbage has been out of hand for a long time. Now that the SRA scares are fading, we get to deal with "every strange kid is a potential psycho." Old dog, still hunts.
Speaking of which, check out www.wm3.org... we've got a kid on death row for a triple murder he obviously had nothing to do with based on him being the neighborhood weirdo and the police coercing a borderline retarded 17-year-old boy into making a false confession by telling him that a polygraph "tells us your brain is lying to us." People are always willing to believe the worst of anyone even the slightest bit "abnormal" if it's in the best interests of their little darlings. Of course, the fact that it usually isn't in their best interests, but is in the best interests of someone who wants to get elected, is utterly beside the point. *rolls eyes*
The kid could well be the next Stephen King, not the next Ted Bundy. But guess what he's being treated as?
THAT is wrong. And (speaking from personal experience) every school counselor I've had the misfortune of dealing with created more problems than she solved. When a student on meds is being so completely not-monitored that it becomes possible for her to fatally OD on Zoloft, and then the same folks hand out MORE Zoloft when my then-housemate goes to them saying "I need drugs," there is a big problem. When a senior throws a seventh grader up against a hallway wall and says "I'm going to fuck you before I graduate if it kills us both," the seventh grader reports it to the high school counselor, and is told "Oh, he's just a flirt, and if you can't handle it that's your problem!"... I have a REAL problem believing in the validity of sending ANY kid who isn't a mindless sheep to one of these fools. I was sent to a counselor and she basically dismantled the coping strategies I had (which were nonviolent, btw), AND ignored my complaints of severe abuses going on in the system.
Lots of kids write scary, depressing stories. Lots of kids enjoy scary, depressing stories. My 9th grade classmates and I freely traded old VC Andrews back and forth. Not exactly sweetness and light, there. And someone (accidentally or deliberately) being killed at school or at a school function is a staple of teen culture books and movies. It's been that way for quite a while. This teacher, at the very least, severely overreacted.
Columbine was only the catalyst for this to get widespread attention.
The Hellmouth has been going on for years, in one form or another. My mother, the valedictorian, suffered from it when she was told she couldn't be an exchange student because "HER father is just a stupid steel worker," so some girl whose father had a classier job got to go instead.
Anyplace that clueless/ignorant teachers are given the opportunity to control the lives of students who are smarter (or at least make better use of their brains) than the teachers, there you will find a Hellmouth. They are everywhere, and have been for years. My mom identifies with Harris and Klebold, too. Not that she would ever have DONE something like that even if given the chance, but she understands the rage. She's been there, too. And this was in the shiny-happy 1960s.:P
My housemate, my boyfriend, and one of the guys living across the street all, as minors, had some "well-meaning" adult tell them to commit themselves to a mental institution. My housemate actually got stuck in there for a matter of days, WITHOUT parental consent. This scares the hell out of me, and I think it should scare most people.
I sort of end up with a split-down-the-middle situation; I'm fairly free with personal info (on the net and elsewhere), because I'm a resourceful little brat and I haven't done anything horribly illegal lately (though I used to commit the occasional acts of civil disobedience for various causes; never got arrested, though). However, I know that there are a lot of people who don't want les/bi/gay, pagan, leftist, supporter of drug legalization, scadian, or plenty of other things I'm not thinking of right now (all of which apply to me) as concepts that are traceable back to them. So the right to privacy is one of my big causes. I'd also appreciate freedom from the threat of being thrown in a mental institution (this was done to me by my mom, long story, but she didn't actually manage to get me in one *sigh of relief*) unless you are a genuine threat to society. And well, most people just aren't that dangerous.
As I've posted before recently, my boyfriend fits the "profile" of an abusive man (broken home, "troubled" high school days, "fascination" with weaponry -- he's a wargamer and a SCA heavy fighter). However, I know damn well that the only way he'll EVER hit me is if I take up heavy fighting or he takes up fencing and we're both appropriately armored. Still, folks tell me we should break up because he's got all the signs of being abusive... *rolls eyes*
Sort of like the problem the SCA group I'm in ran into with getting a practice site. Yep, consenting adults beating each other with rattan sticks and fencing foils while wearing appropriate safety equipment and being supervised, AFTER SCHOOL HOURS, break the no-weapons rule at the school we were supposed to be practicing at.
A friend of mine who's a second-generation scadian liked to borrow his dad's chainmail to set off the metal detectors. The admin laughed it off, mostly, then. Now, they'd probably lock him up.
Or maybe not. This is, after all, a city magnet school that concentrates a good bit on theater, not a white-bread suburban school that never had a sense of humor even when it didn't have metal detectors.:P
There is a certain group of guys my approximate age (I'm 22; the guys are between 19 and 23) that I have nicknamed the Lost Boys. They either live at home or JUST moved out on their own, have dropped out or flunked out of college, and are generally speaking working McJobs (or not working at all). They've got all kinds of fancy technology-related toys, and they either expect Mommy to cook for them or they live on ramen noodles and Mountain Dew or spend way too much money at TGI Friday's. And they annoy the hell out of me (especially since two of 'em just moved in across the street -- did I mention neither has a car, one has no license, and my boyfriend and I keep getting calls to drive them around?)
I know some geek guys who have their act together, but many of them are still in Lost Boy mode (even my own boyfriend falls slightly into this category, though he is at least in school full-time). And I certainly wouldn't want to be in a relationship with someone who doesn't seem to understand that swearing at one's manager is a real good way to get fired... for instance. And I most certainly do NOT want to be a replacement mother-figure.
One thing that is absolutely non-negotiable in my relationship is that my boyfriend WILL live outside his mom's house without me before any prospect of living together or marriage. I haven't lived at my parents' house for more than two weeks since I was 16, and I've been (mostly) financially independent for two years. I have a friend, something of a big-sister figure, who is separating from her husband after she put him through school (and it apparently took him something like 10 years to finish). This isn't cool. Self-respecting adults need to be involved with other self-respecting adults, not Lost Boys (or Lost Girls, for that matter).
I know, I post this same thing every time I see this leap of logic being made, but that's 'cause it bothers me so much. I haven't done any serious programming in years (web design doesn't count, to me) but I still 1) know my way around a computer quite well as an end-user; 2) like Star Trek, AD&D, Bradbury, and lots of other stereotypically-geeky things; and 3) allegedly have a high IQ, and was skipped several grades. I'm not the typical/. reader, probably I'm not even a typical female/. reader, but I'm still here.
And so are my science-geek friends, probably. (Hi, Crystal!)
And considering what constitutes a "threat" to some teachers, we do have something to be worried about.
A family friend's son got suspended for two weeks when he was in fifth grade for telling the teacher "I want a blow job out of town!" when he didn't even really know what the phrase meant. I can see explaining to the kid that you shouldn't repeat what's on bathroom walls, but TWO WEEKS OF SUSPENSION?!
There's also the whole issue of my SCA group's heavy fighters and fencers losing their practice site because the idiot suburban school district we were supposed to use decided that legal adults engaging in a martial art in a safe and supervised fashion after school hours is still a violation of their zero-tolerance for weapons policy.
If an unbroken epee is a "weapon," I'd hate to see what a "threat" is to these folks. Hell, I had a bad day at work and was joking about wanting to burn everything on my desk. I'd never actually DO it, but had I said that in a school, it'd have been a threat, probably... even though I was honestly just blowing off steam.
There are generally two problems with profiling IMHO: the profiles are too general, and they are frequently based off of stereotypes rather than data. And right now this has affected my life and the lives of my friends in some ways I'm plenty pissed about:
1. Lots and lots of well-meaning friends telling me to break up with my boyfriend because he supposedly fits the profile of an abuser (divorced parents, "troubled" high school years, slightly erratic job history, and what could be called a "fascination" with weapons). I *know* that the only way he'd ever hit me is if I take up SCA heavy weapons or he takes up fencing and we're BOTH wearing armor. And yet the concerned inquiries persist. Meanwhile, the piece of slime that abused my housemate for two years set off no such alarm bells -- his parents were still together, and did I mention he's gay?:P
2. Carload of guys coming back across the border from a Canadian fencing tourney. Four young white long-haired males. All their stuff gets picked through for any possible sign of drugs, and their fencing foils almost get confiscated.
3. Another friend of mine (this one female) who fences was given a lot of grief by her doctor at her last checkup because he was absolutely CERTAIN that she was being abused. Now, mind you, this doctor knows that she and her husband are both highly skilled fencers, but just based on her age and the newness of the marriage, he made rather an ass out of himself asking repeatedly if she was being abused. *sigh* What a pain in the neck that must've been.
More like he's pointing out how Christians are perfectly willing to use violence to their own ends. Especially some of the more radical ones.
But pointing out the Inquisition, the Salem Witch Trials, and the murders of abortion doctors would just be setting up a "strawman" example of Christianity in the other direction, right?
More bothersome to me is the way that the Religious Right is using worries about school violence (which is, as JK pointed out, DOWN, Columbine notwithstanding) as an excuse to get the Ten Commandments nd prayer back in the schools. I'm NOT Christian and I find that vastly inappropriate.
The only mistake I see him as having made is failing to differentiate between the average run-of-the-mill Christian (many of whom are quite nice and rational folks) and the moral zealots. I generally try to make that distinction in my own writing. However, sometimes it just gets difficult to keep on making the clarification, and we get a litlte lazy and start assuming that you know which people we mean. But SOMEone always has to jump on it as "Christian-bashing." Sheesh. It gets old after a while, y'know?
I don't see where he says the game shouldn't be sold at all, either. He's merely pointing out 1) the hypocricy of having an extremely violent game marketed as suitable for teenagers because it is religious when an equivalent secular (or other than Christian religion) game would not be, 2) that many fundamentalists are more than willing to use violence for THEIR objectives even as they decry the "violent society" we now live in, and 3) that there is no conclusive evidence thatthe players of this game would WANT to be on the side of the angels to begin with.:P
There are a lot of people leaning on the Bible for certain moral laws, but it seems to me that most of the moral laws they are talking about are in place to maximize population growth (and you can tell me Malthus was wrong all you want, but IMHO continued population growth is AT BEST morally neutral).
Most of the laws were either addressing sanitation issues (for instance, the prohibition against eating pork... trichinosis anyone??), symbolic warnings against intermarriage (do not wear clothing of two different fibers), and regulating sex for MAXIMUM reproductive potential and avoidance of inbreeding. It's no coincidence that a woman was "unclean" and not to be slept with during her period and for seven days afterwards; ask anyone who's trying to get pregnant.:)
Unfortunately, all this continues to be taken as "God wants us to keep making more people!" *sigh* How about providing for the ones we HAVE, first??
Slashdot Mirror
The first and foremost job of any school should be to teach students how to think, and how a particular discipline WORKS. But because people are being taught at a superficial level rather than being taught underlying concepts, it is suddenly taking at least a Bachelor's degree to accomplish what a HS diploma once would have in terms of training for the workforce. Sad, very very sad.
1. Info-addicts like me end up in all kinds of interesting trouble at work (that's why I've semi-disappeared from
2. More importantly IMHO, the lowest common denominator is STILL pandered to. What good are multiple cable channels when they're all taken up by Monica Lewinsky, old B movies (that aren't even so-good-they're-bad), and syndicated re-runs of shows that weren't worth watching the first time around?
And living conditions are still incredibly variable from state to state. Sure, we're all "Americans" here, but the two years I went to school in another state did seem almost like being in another country, as did the week I spent in San Francisco. YMMV, of course, and the change from NY to Pennsylvania doesn't feel as drastic. Hell, even upstate and downstate NY sometimes feel like foreign countries to each other.
The Second Amendment is talking about "a well-regulated militia." Koresh and crew were not part of a well-regulated militia. The Columbine killers were not part of a well-regulated militia. We require people to practice before they are allowed to drive a car on their own, and to show that they can do it safely -- and cars aren't DESIGNED to kill people (even though I know they do it a lot). Why can't we, at the least, do the same with guns?
When I have kids, and someone throws a baby shower for me, I'm going to make sure they know NOT to get me anything with cartoon characters OF ANY SORT on it, and I'll try to keep the kids away from the stuff as long as possible. I don't care if it's Mickey Mouse, Big Bird, or Pokemon.
The biggest difference I can see in society is that of mass-production. It seems that in the past, most workers were more directly connected to the results of their efforts than they are now. Just a thought.
And I do wish that the petty bashing of other people's choice of whether or not to attend college and/or for how long and/or choice of major would just STOP. One of the best professors I had was my radio production prof, who was an adjunct with two years of undergrad work under his belt. I don't think I ever worked harder in a class in my life, or ever loved it as much. Sometimes it's better to learn from a guy who's been out in the field for 30 years than someone with the fancy pieces of paper on the wall.
And of course: social science isn't just for people who "can't hack the hard stuff," science/math/comp-sci majors aren't all heartless and arrogant, an English or other classical liberal-arts type major isn't useless (my dad's got some interesting stats on that one that I don't recall right now), business majors aren't all there just to make a quick buck when they get out, etc.
I've met a few guys from the net (as well as a lovely lady) and none of them have ever been disappointed by my appearance. I consider this a good thing. Of course, I'm not looking NOW *grin*, but I do think that you could do worse than finding someone on the internet. However, your best bet is probably to start talking to someone in something other than a "flirting" or "cybersex" area.
I did a lot of the net-romance thing in college. Two were complete psychos (why I stayed with one of 'em for five months, I'll never know), one just didn't work out and we don't really talk anymore, two that I was fairly serious about and starting to consider moving fell apart due to lack of transportation, but I'm still friends with them, and one I never met (due to his being on another continent) and we were never really a couple for that reason, but the interest was there and we are still friends
My boyfriend had a more difficult time meeting people online -- then again, he was living with parents (unlike me), and it's probably more difficult for guys due to the whole supply and demand thing. We did NOT meet online, and we're in the same town, but sometimes I wonder what would have happened if we'd run into each other online a few years ago.
1. The angry overreaction. "What the hell's wrong with you? I can do it myself!" In this case, you know not to ask her again, and you also know that she might not be (IMHO) the world's greatest relationship material. Not because she is independent or a feminist (I am both) -- because she overreacts to little things. If you LIKE walking on eggshells it could still work, but I'd look elsewhere.
2. "No, it's OK, I've got it," accompanied by a friendly smile. This one's definitely independent and feminist as well, but she's calm about it. However, depending on circumstance, this could be a fairly clear indication that (if this is what you had in mind) she's not interested romantically.
3. (My usual flirting tactic back when I was single, and still used on my boyfriend from time to time.) She lets you do whatever for her, and then she makes a big, showy display of doing something similar for you. If she's anything like me, this is a fairly clear sign of interest as well as an attempt to weed out those guys who are extremely insecure about their masculinity. If you like her and value her company, you will accept this with good cheer and even look forward to it.
4. She giggles and lets you do whatever for her. Can be good, can be bad. She might be impressed by your chivalry, or she might be deliberately feigning helplessness because she's a) a Rules Girl or b) otherwise trying to put on a fake charming personality. If she's genuine and you like that sort of thing, this could work. But RUN, don't walk, from those who feign helplessness and/or incompetence -- it's even more irritating than legitimate, actual stupidity. These are the same girls who will only eat half of an expensive dinner that you bought because they're worrying about how fat they are since they have to *gasp* wear a size eight! (Yeah, I'm a bit bitter. A good male friend of mine just got dumped by one of these after several years, and he had no idea it was coming. Ugh.)
But people NEED to talk about it. Why do you think it got so much media coverage in the first place? Even the media felt the need to talk about it. We on
Those of us who write for purposes other than class assignments tend to work things through via our writing. Of course, some of it comes from thin air or from other resources -- my Amber fanfic certainly contains a lot of things that have nothing to do with MY reality. Yet I identify strongly with the "villain" of that story-world because he's another smart kid who couldn't stand the stupidity of the world anymore and went ballistic (at least, that's how I see it). There have certainly been times when I've wished I *did* have some appropriate way to make those who made me miserable suffer as they made me suffer. But it's better to write a story about blowing things up than to actually blow them up, n'est-ce pas?
Speaking of which, check out www.wm3.org
THAT is wrong. And (speaking from personal experience) every school counselor I've had the misfortune of dealing with created more problems than she solved. When a student on meds is being so completely not-monitored that it becomes possible for her to fatally OD on Zoloft, and then the same folks hand out MORE Zoloft when my then-housemate goes to them saying "I need drugs," there is a big problem. When a senior throws a seventh grader up against a hallway wall and says "I'm going to fuck you before I graduate if it kills us both," the seventh grader reports it to the high school counselor, and is told "Oh, he's just a flirt, and if you can't handle it that's your problem!"
Lots of kids write scary, depressing stories. Lots of kids enjoy scary, depressing stories. My 9th grade classmates and I freely traded old VC Andrews back and forth. Not exactly sweetness and light, there. And someone (accidentally or deliberately) being killed at school or at a school function is a staple of teen culture books and movies. It's been that way for quite a while. This teacher, at the very least, severely overreacted.
The Hellmouth has been going on for years, in one form or another. My mother, the valedictorian, suffered from it when she was told she couldn't be an exchange student because "HER father is just a stupid steel worker," so some girl whose father had a classier job got to go instead.
Anyplace that clueless/ignorant teachers are given the opportunity to control the lives of students who are smarter (or at least make better use of their brains) than the teachers, there you will find a Hellmouth. They are everywhere, and have been for years. My mom identifies with Harris and Klebold, too. Not that she would ever have DONE something like that even if given the chance, but she understands the rage. She's been there, too. And this was in the shiny-happy 1960s.
I sort of end up with a split-down-the-middle situation; I'm fairly free with personal info (on the net and elsewhere), because I'm a resourceful little brat and I haven't done anything horribly illegal lately (though I used to commit the occasional acts of civil disobedience for various causes; never got arrested, though). However, I know that there are a lot of people who don't want les/bi/gay, pagan, leftist, supporter of drug legalization, scadian, or plenty of other things I'm not thinking of right now (all of which apply to me) as concepts that are traceable back to them. So the right to privacy is one of my big causes. I'd also appreciate freedom from the threat of being thrown in a mental institution (this was done to me by my mom, long story, but she didn't actually manage to get me in one *sigh of relief*) unless you are a genuine threat to society. And well, most people just aren't that dangerous.
As I've posted before recently, my boyfriend fits the "profile" of an abusive man (broken home, "troubled" high school days, "fascination" with weaponry -- he's a wargamer and a SCA heavy fighter). However, I know damn well that the only way he'll EVER hit me is if I take up heavy fighting or he takes up fencing and we're both appropriately armored. Still, folks tell me we should break up because he's got all the signs of being abusive
A friend of mine who's a second-generation scadian liked to borrow his dad's chainmail to set off the metal detectors. The admin laughed it off, mostly, then. Now, they'd probably lock him up.
Or maybe not. This is, after all, a city magnet school that concentrates a good bit on theater, not a white-bread suburban school that never had a sense of humor even when it didn't have metal detectors.
I know some geek guys who have their act together, but many of them are still in Lost Boy mode (even my own boyfriend falls slightly into this category, though he is at least in school full-time). And I certainly wouldn't want to be in a relationship with someone who doesn't seem to understand that swearing at one's manager is a real good way to get fired
One thing that is absolutely non-negotiable in my relationship is that my boyfriend WILL live outside his mom's house without me before any prospect of living together or marriage. I haven't lived at my parents' house for more than two weeks since I was 16, and I've been (mostly) financially independent for two years. I have a friend, something of a big-sister figure, who is separating from her husband after she put him through school (and it apparently took him something like 10 years to finish). This isn't cool. Self-respecting adults need to be involved with other self-respecting adults, not Lost Boys (or Lost Girls, for that matter).
I know, I post this same thing every time I see this leap of logic being made, but that's 'cause it bothers me so much. I haven't done any serious programming in years (web design doesn't count, to me) but I still 1) know my way around a computer quite well as an end-user; 2) like Star Trek, AD&D, Bradbury, and lots of other stereotypically-geeky things; and 3) allegedly have a high IQ, and was skipped several grades. I'm not the typical
And so are my science-geek friends, probably. (Hi, Crystal!)
A family friend's son got suspended for two weeks when he was in fifth grade for telling the teacher "I want a blow job out of town!" when he didn't even really know what the phrase meant. I can see explaining to the kid that you shouldn't repeat what's on bathroom walls, but TWO WEEKS OF SUSPENSION?!
There's also the whole issue of my SCA group's heavy fighters and fencers losing their practice site because the idiot suburban school district we were supposed to use decided that legal adults engaging in a martial art in a safe and supervised fashion after school hours is still a violation of their zero-tolerance for weapons policy.
If an unbroken epee is a "weapon," I'd hate to see what a "threat" is to these folks. Hell, I had a bad day at work and was joking about wanting to burn everything on my desk. I'd never actually DO it, but had I said that in a school, it'd have been a threat, probably
There are generally two problems with profiling IMHO: the profiles are too general, and they are frequently based off of stereotypes rather than data. And right now this has affected my life and the lives of my friends in some ways I'm plenty pissed about:
1. Lots and lots of well-meaning friends telling me to break up with my boyfriend because he supposedly fits the profile of an abuser (divorced parents, "troubled" high school years, slightly erratic job history, and what could be called a "fascination" with weapons). I *know* that the only way he'd ever hit me is if I take up SCA heavy weapons or he takes up fencing and we're BOTH wearing armor. And yet the concerned inquiries persist. Meanwhile, the piece of slime that abused my housemate for two years set off no such alarm bells -- his parents were still together, and did I mention he's gay?
2. Carload of guys coming back across the border from a Canadian fencing tourney. Four young white long-haired males. All their stuff gets picked through for any possible sign of drugs, and their fencing foils almost get confiscated.
3. Another friend of mine (this one female) who fences was given a lot of grief by her doctor at her last checkup because he was absolutely CERTAIN that she was being abused. Now, mind you, this doctor knows that she and her husband are both highly skilled fencers, but just based on her age and the newness of the marriage, he made rather an ass out of himself asking repeatedly if she was being abused. *sigh* What a pain in the neck that must've been.
But pointing out the Inquisition, the Salem Witch Trials, and the murders of abortion doctors would just be setting up a "strawman" example of Christianity in the other direction, right?
More bothersome to me is the way that the Religious Right is using worries about school violence (which is, as JK pointed out, DOWN, Columbine notwithstanding) as an excuse to get the Ten Commandments nd prayer back in the schools. I'm NOT Christian and I find that vastly inappropriate.
I don't see where he says the game shouldn't be sold at all, either. He's merely pointing out 1) the hypocricy of having an extremely violent game marketed as suitable for teenagers because it is religious when an equivalent secular (or other than Christian religion) game would not be, 2) that many fundamentalists are more than willing to use violence for THEIR objectives even as they decry the "violent society" we now live in, and 3) that there is no conclusive evidence thatthe players of this game would WANT to be on the side of the angels to begin with.
Most of the laws were either addressing sanitation issues (for instance, the prohibition against eating pork
Unfortunately, all this continues to be taken as "God wants us to keep making more people!" *sigh* How about providing for the ones we HAVE, first??